Impact of active placebo controls on estimated drug effects in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

In many clinical drug trials, patients and health care providers are not told who are allocated to the experimental drug and who are allocated to a similarly looking placebo control. This "blinding" procedure aims to protect against bias by ensuring an impartial assessment. Some patients may, however, experience noticeable side effects from the drug, eg, dry mouth or sedation, which can lead them to guess their allocated intervention. This is called loss of blinding or "unblinding." Active placebo controls are different from regular placebo controls because they contain ingredients that also imitate the side effects of the drug. We do not know whether this protects against bias from loss of blinding. Therefore, we wanted to assess if trials with active placebo controls yielded different results than similar trials with regular placebo controls. We found such trials by using meta-analyses of comparable trials with both types of placebo controls for various conditions, eg, pain and depression. With more than 100 meta-analyses, including approximately 1700 trials, this is the largest investigation of active placebo controls. We found that in trials using regular placebo controls, the experimental drug effect was slightly larger compared to similar trials with active placebo controls, on average (2%), but there was considerable variation between meta-analyses. The result could be a chance finding and, due to random variation, was compatible with both a 23% exaggeration and 24% underestimation of effect (when measured as odds ratio). In addition, the average may conceal relevant context-specific circumstances under which active placebo controls are more important or less important. We explored several potential circumstances without finding an explanation for the variation between meta-analyses. We conclude that it remains unclear if, and under which circumstances, active placebo controls are more reliable than standard placebo controls.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111998
Primary Topic
Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of active placebo controls on estimated drug effects in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

David Ruben Teindl Laursen, Erlend Faltinsen, Søren Viborg Vestergaard, Ingrid Rose MacLean-Nyegaard et al.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Pain Management and Placebo Effect
article

Impact of active placebo controls on estimated drug effects in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

David Ruben Teindl Laursen, Erlend Faltinsen, Søren Viborg Vestergaard, Ingrid Rose MacLean-Nyegaard, Mathias Damkjær, Andreas Halgreen Eiset, Asger Sand Paludan‐Müller, Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Mihaela Ivosevic Broager, Mia Elkjær, Lasse Adrup Benné Petersen
article en

Abstract

In many clinical drug trials, patients and health care providers are not told who are allocated to the experimental drug and who are allocated to a similarly looking placebo control. This "blinding" procedure aims to protect against bias by ensuring an impartial assessment. Some patients may, however, experience noticeable side effects from the drug, eg, dry mouth or sedation, which can lead them to guess their allocated intervention. This is called loss of blinding or "unblinding." Active placebo controls are different from regular placebo controls because they contain ingredients that also imitate the side effects of the drug. We do not know whether this protects against bias from loss of blinding. Therefore, we wanted to assess if trials with active placebo controls yielded different results than similar trials with regular placebo controls. We found such trials by using meta-analyses of comparable trials with both types of placebo controls for various conditions, eg, pain and depression. With more than 100 meta-analyses, including approximately 1700 trials, this is the largest investigation of active placebo controls. We found that in trials using regular placebo controls, the experimental drug effect was slightly larger compared to similar trials with active placebo controls, on average (2%), but there was considerable variation between meta-analyses. The result could be a chance finding and, due to random variation, was compatible with both a 23% exaggeration and 24% underestimation of effect (when measured as odds ratio). In addition, the average may conceal relevant context-specific circumstances under which active placebo controls are more important or less important. We explored several potential circumstances without finding an explanation for the variation between meta-analyses. We conclude that it remains unclear if, and under which circumstances, active placebo controls are more reliable than standard placebo controls.

Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 188
University of Southern Denmark (DK), Odense University Hospital (DK), Aarhus University Hospital (DK), Region of Southern Denmark (DK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Pain Management and Placebo Effect
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.